Forum Index
»
Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)
One Night Stands in Youth = Infidelity in Marriage
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Ah, yes, now we’re at the ad hominem stage. When people start critiquing delivery instead of responding to the argument, it’s usually because the argument itself isn’t working out for them. But I'm happy to re-write things at a more appropriate grade level for you if needed. Since you seem to have lost track of what actually happened here, let me recap: 1. A previous poster claimed, verbatim: “There is in fact research showing that promiscuous people have lower relationship satisfaction rates in marriage… and several evolutionary studies that correlate female fidelity to pair bonding and departure from promiscuity,” and then linked three citations. 2. I read those citations and explained that they do not support those claims. One was a student poster project, not a peer-reviewed study. None of them analyzed marital satisfaction. None of them showed correlations between promiscuity and bonding ability. One of them actually argued that sexual and romantic exploration precede attachment rather than prevent it. 3. I explained what each source actually said so people could see that the claims being made were not supported by the cited material. 4. Instead of responding to that by providing better evidence (which is what we do in science), someone shifted to saying “Funny, the research regarding what brings people satisfaction in life and relationships reaches the same conclusions as the initially posted research.” But the initially posted research did not address satisfaction in life and relationships at all, which is the entire point. Then the conversation jumped to “rape and slavery are natural,” which is a complete strawman and has nothing to do with whether those specific citations provided support claims about satisfaction rates in marriage. Now, to address your current post: "In case you missed it, this thread is about values. It is entirely appropriate to introduce evidence on biological differences to add information to the discussion." At no point did I say it was inappropriate to introduce biological evidence. What I said is that the evidence introduced has to actually support the claim being made. The citations that were posted did not support the argument that promiscuity leads to lower relationship satisfaction rates, or that sexual history determines bonding ability. They simply were not about that. So yes, bring in biology if you want. Just don’t claim that your evidence proves something it doesn’t. My guess is that poster did a quick Google search and grabbed random links without actually bothering to read them. "For nearly all of human history, there has been only way to reproduce one’s offspring. Only one. In this activity, it is entirely irrelevant if the interest is consensual (or not). The modern consent framework a very recent invention and the concept that women had any right to consent (or not) is also a relatively new invention which only became popularized around 1500 years ago. " Your use of rape, slavery, and consent is unclear. It appears your argument is: 1. If there’s no single “natural” mating system and that sexual exploration has existed historically, and, 2. Lots of terrible things also existed historically (rape, slavery, coercion), then, 3. We can’t use “it happened in nature or history” as a defense of behavior today. 4. Therefore, saying promiscuity is natural does not mean it should be socially acceptable or encouraged. 5. And if you defend modern sexual freedom by appealing to nature, you also have to defend other “natural” but harmful behaviors such as rape. So your argument is: “Natural ≠ good, therefore stop defending promiscuity by saying it’s natural." But I was never making a moral argument about what people should or should not do. I was correcting a factual claim about what the research cited actually showed. The three citations provided did not provide any data on their original claim of promiscuity affecting marriage satisfaction. You are now arguing about: - Whether modern sexual norms are good - Whether society should discourage certain behaviors I was arguing about: - Whether the studies cited by a previous poster actually show promiscuity harms bonding or satisfaction Those are different debates. So even if the moral argument is valid (that “natural” doesn’t justify behavior), it still wouldn’t make the previous poster's claims that the three citations they provided show evidence of promiscuity affecting marital satusfaction true. They simply don't. Hope that clears things up for you! As I said, happy to re-write things at a lower grade level for you if the words are still too big. |
Anonymous
It may just be correlation, not causation, but I could see how someone who is willing/wants to have multiple one-night stands is probably someone for whom sex is relatively meaningless from an emotional perspective. So in that vein, I could see how someone who felt that way would be more likely to cheat because in their mind sex can be something that doesn't mean anything. On the other hand, someone who had a lot of one-night stands may also have sown their oats enough to want to be monogamous once they get married. But I think the former is more likely than the latter. |
Anonymous
If you've never been in that situation then you don't understand it. I'm not condoning cheating (and I didn't), but I was surprised at the way the situation arose. Never thought I'd find myself there. |
Anonymous
| My ONS history all took place one summer in college when I traveled throughout Europe. I didn’t keep a body count but I’m sure it was at least one guy in every country I visited. Yes, I used protection. I’ve been happily monogamous for 23 years because I’m in love. The Europe guys were just for sex. I did learn a lot about what I really liked! |
Anonymous
Hm, let me get clear with this, because it appears you are trying to argue two things at once: 1. That from an evolutionary standpoint, sex is just about reproduction, so distinctions like consent, harm, or emotional bonding are irrelevant to biology. In other words, evolution only “cares” whether sperm fertilizes egg, not how it happens. 2. You are using rape as an extreme example to make a philosophical point about how one is allowed to use “nature” in arguments. What you think I am saying is: “Because promiscuity and sexual exploration existed historically and are biologically natural, they are therefore acceptable or harmless today.” So you bring up rape to say: “Lots of things are natural and happened historically that we don’t accept today. So you can’t defend modern sexual behavior just by saying it’s natural.” To address point #1: Evolutionary biology does not treat all sex that results in fertilization as equivalent. It studies mating systems, mate choice, parental investment, pair bonding, and cooperative child-rearing because those factors massively affect offspring survival and long-term fitness. If fertilization were all that mattered, none of those behaviors would exist or be worth studying. Evolutionary biology looks at the number of offspring who survive to reproduce themselves, not number of eggs fertilized. So no, rape and consensual mating are not biologically equivalent in evolutionary models, because they have completely different consequences for parental cooperation, offspring survival, social stability, and future reproductive success. That’s why mate choice and bonding are central topics in evolutionary biology in the first place. In species with long childhood dependency (like humans), offspring survival depends heavily on protection, food provisioning, teaching, social support. If a female mates with a male who sticks around and invests, her offspring are far more likely to survive to adulthood and reproduce themselves. If mating happens through coercion and the male does not invest, offspring survival drops. So mate choice affects not just whether fertilization happens, but whether the offspring actually survive long enough to reproduce themselves. Also, mate choice isn’t random. Across species, females tend to prefer males with traits that increase the chance offspring will develop normally, survive, and reproduce. If mating is random or coercive, females lose the ability to bias reproduction towards higher-fitness partners. Evolution does not just track "Did sperm meet egg?", it tracks "Did this lineage successfully reproduce across generations?" To address Point #2: If you re-read my original post, you'll see I was never saying natural=good. A previous poster posted the claim that promiscuity leads to marital dissatisfaction, then cited three sources. I simply read the three sources, saw that none of them were even relevant to the claim made, and broke down what the studies were actually saying (along with why one study was not a study at all, it was a sophomore year PSYCH project, not published, peer-reviewed research). I also pointed out that one of the papers they cited actually disproved their claim and showed promiscuity as a normal part of the pair-bonding process. It is key for you to understand *I* did not provide those three citations. A previous poster provided them as evidence for their claims that promiscuity damages pair bonding. I just read them and saw they were not evidence of the claims made by PP. Now, for fun, let's actually dive into values and modern sexual practices! Scientists separate "Values" into three questions: 1. What behaviors exist or existed? 2. What are the consequences of those behaviors? 3. What should society allow or encourage? Science addresses #1 and #2. #3 is ethics, philosophy, and law. So, scientists do not say, “This is natural, therefore it’s good.”, nor “This is natural, therefore we shouldn’t judge it.”. Scientists say, "Here’s what happens when this occurs," and societies decide what to do with that information. You cannot logically move from “X happens in nature” to “X is acceptable”. In fact, there is a term for this in philosophy, The Naturalistic Fallacy. So ethically speaking, it is invalid to say "violence is natural, therefore violence is okay" or "hierarchies are natural, therefore inequality is okay". Ethics and philosophy instead focus on harm, autonomy, and social stability. Examples of this are harm-based ethics (actions are wrong if they cause unjustified harm to others), rights-based ethics (people have inherent rights to autonomy and freedom from coercion), and social contract ethics (societal rules that allow people to coexist with minimal conflict and maximal cooperation). So from an ethics and philosophical standpoint (NOT science, because remember, science does not say "this is natural, therefore it is good"), rape vs consensual sex are a matter of coercive vs voluntary, harmful vs non-harmful, and violating autonomy vs respecting autonomy. Rape is morally wrong because of harm, coercion, and violation of autonomy. Where you are confused is that you are mixing up descriptive facts (what happened in history / nature) with normative rules (what should be allowed now). That does not follow in any ethical framework. Like, at all. Now, how does ethics address sex? From an ethics standpoint, we ask “What are the consequences, and who is harmed, if anyone?” Consensual sex between adults is not unethical by default. It becomes unethical when it involves deception, coercion/pressure, exploitation, emotional manipulation, etc. So ethically, the problem is not multiple partners. A person who has had many partners but is honest and respectful is not doing harm. A common argument is "certain sexual norms promote stable families and social cohesion, and society has an interest in encouraging those." The idea being that it is better for society as a whole if people are not promiscuous. But even here, the argument is whether the behavior harms dependents or institutions. This is also where we can bring science back in. What actually predicts stable relationships? What supports child wellbeing? What supports long-term partnership success? Do certain behaviors undermine bonding, cooperation, or parental investment? The previous poster made the argument that promiscuity impacts future pair-bonding, but did not provide citations that back up their assertion. At this point, they should go find citations that do. |
Anonymous
I didn't. Yet most of dcum normalizes having herpes so I can see why because of all those one night stands yall had |
Anonymous
Thankfully, your issues have been thoroughly “run through”, since you can’t even talk about it with a potential partner. Wanting to know someone’s past doesn’t necessarily mean judgement, but you are obviously judging from the start. |
Anonymous
Of course it does and of course I'm judging who I want to spend my time with. Idiots with mommy issues are not my thing. If you want to ask for a clean STD screen because that concerns your health, sure. That's reasonable. Asking me for the number is sexual parters is none of your business and it shows me right away we are not compatible. Feel free to move on, as I have many times. |
Anonymous
| Only poor men care about how many men you’ve slept with. They ask you because they have no other way to impress you besides sex and they are trying to figure out how hard they need to work during sex to impress you. |
Anonymous
Of course it is. Those having multiple ONS are doing it because they like it. I didn't stop drinking beer as an adult because I drank a lot of it in college. |
Anonymous
Duhhhhh, of course we like it. That's the WHOLE point. But most of us are married and have regular, fulfilling sex with our spouses. How is this hard to understand? |
Anonymous
Good, we agree. The notion that women who had multiple ONS in their 20s would never have one in their 40s is bogus af. You don't stop doing something you like because you did it before. |
Anonymous
I thought I just said I didn't stop having sex. I just choose to have sex with one man I love and I am committed to? Again, why are you confused? |
Anonymous
DP. Having multiple ONS is different than having sex in the context of a committed relationship. With the former, you are having sex with many partners. With the latter, you are not. Because you had multiple ONS in your 20s does not mean you will have them in 40s. It just means you had multiple ONS. |
Anonymous
Exactly. It's like the PP thinks we're all addicted to ONSs like he is to beer. Dumb analogy anyway you look at it. |